{
  "id": 2876920,
  "name": "E. H. Bayley, Defendant in Error, v. A. E. Coy, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bayley v. Coy",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,092",
  "first_page": "433",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 433"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 3559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "60625ab7ab0a052e2e924a85c4a45592612263c3bcbe28aab2d074f6fbe19aa6",
    "simhash": "1:919354b1f1848a5c",
    "word_count": 607
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. H. Bayley, Defendant in Error, v. A. E. Coy, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harris F. Williams, for plaintiff in error; W. Scott Hodges and Eldon M. Votaw, of counsel.",
      "Charles Daniels and Sumner C. Palmer, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. H. Bayley, Defendant in Error, v. A. E. Coy, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,092.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jarecki, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1915.\nRehearing denied December 20, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by E. H. Bayley, plaintiff, against A. E. Coy, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover back money received by defendant with which to purchase stock and misappropriated by him. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $787.50, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nDefendant, it was claimed, was the agent of plaintiff to purchase 35,750 shares of stock of the Mina Grand Mining Company, for which purpose plaintiff gave him $1,787.50, upon the representation of defendant that such stock could be bought for that sum and no less. Subsequently plaintiff ascertained that defendant bought 40,000 shares of said stock for $1,000 and applied to his own use, unbeknown to plaintiff, the remaining $787.50, together with 4,250 shares of the stock.\nIt appeared that for a long time defendant had been in the confidence of plaintiff in various deals in stock and that he was in the habit of confiding in defendant\u2019s representations in regard to them. The plaintiff lived in Minnesota, while defendant lived in Chicago. Defendant wrote plaintiff under date of March 22, 1906: \u201clam having the stock transferred as per your instructions and will send the same to you by registered mail this afternoon. You must promise to never say to any one anything about the price paid nor from whom you did the business with. You know I am supposed to do what I can to sell treasury stock for 20c per share, but I could not let the opportunity pass to let you in on this deal.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Principal and agent, \u00a7 8 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show existence of relation. In an action to recover back money paid to defendant as plaintiff\u2019s agent to purchase stock, evidence held sufficient to prove that defendant acted as plaintiff\u2019s agent in the transaction.\n2. Limitation of actions, \u00a7 20 \u2014when statute begins to run against action based on fraud. In an action at law based on defendant\u2019s fraud, the statute of limitations will not begin to run until plaintiff discovers the fraud, or might, by the use of reasonable diligence, have discovered it.\n3. Frauds, \u00a7 45 \u2014when laches not defense. The rule applicable to an action in equity, that plaintiff\u2019s failure to use reasonable diligence to discover the fraud practiced on him is excused so as to prevent his cause of action from being barred by the statute of limitations or laches where defendant sustained a relation of trust and confidence, making it his duty to disclose the truth to plaintiff, is equally applicable to an action at law based on defendant\u2019s fraud.\n4. Fraud, \u00a7 112 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show. Evidence that a defendant who had received money from plaintiff with which to purchase stock failed to inform plaintiff of the real price paid for the stock, and wrote plaintiff a letter calculated to deter him from making inquiries on his own account, is sufficient to prove fraud on the part of defendant.\nHarris F. Williams, for plaintiff in error; W. Scott Hodges and Eldon M. Votaw, of counsel.\nCharles Daniels and Sumner C. Palmer, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0433-01",
  "first_page_order": 459,
  "last_page_order": 461
}